US NAVY JAG INVESTIGATORS ARRESTED DEEP STATE JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, THE TREASONOUS JUSTICE WHO ADJUDICATED THE STATE OF NEW YORK’S ILLEGAL “HUSH MONEY” CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, OUTSIDE HIS HOME IN QUEENS WEDNESDAY MORNING, POUNDING YET ANOTHER STAKE INTO THE HEART OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK’S CORRUPT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Curiously, the arrestContinue reading “US NAVY JAG INVESTIGATORS ARRESTED DEEP STATE JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, THE TREASONOUS JUSTICE WHO ADJUDICATED THE STATE OF NEW YORK’S ILLEGAL “HUSH MONEY” CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, OUTSIDE HIS HOME IN QUEENS WEDNESDAY MORNING, POUNDING YET ANOTHER STAKE INTO THE HEART OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK’S CORRUPT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.”
Tag Archives: law
CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST – Thomas v. Progressive – Civil Action No.: 23-00225-TFM-B (S.D.Ala. Dec 29, 2023( Thomas further cites the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT” as a basis for FEDERAL question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 3). However, “[t]he CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, a 1666 ACT of PARLIAMENT, is an ENGLISH LAW that plainly does not provide a BASIS for FEDERAL question jurisdiction.” Mims, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226577, at *2, 2023 WL 8804324, at *1; see White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184024, at *3-5, 2023 WL 6036842, at *2 (finding that plaintiff’s reference to the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT 1666” did not provide him with a colorable federal cause of action); Wood v. United States, 161 Fed.Cl. 30, 34-35 (Fed. Cl. 2022) (“Sovereign citizens also sometimes reference the CESTUI QUE VIE ACT OF 1666, or a ‘CESTUI QUE VIE’ TRUST, as support for their arguments in court…. In short, the legal fiction presented by plaintiff in the complaint is not based in law but in the fantasies of the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT. There is no jurisdiction in this court for fictitious claims.”).
CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST – Thomas v. Progressive – Civil Action No.: 23-00225-TFM-B (S.D.Ala. Dec 29, 2023( Thomas further cites the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT” as a basis for FEDERAL question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 3). However, “[t]he CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, a 1666 ACT of PARLIAMENT, is an ENGLISH LAW that plainly does not provide a BASISContinue reading “CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST – Thomas v. Progressive – Civil Action No.: 23-00225-TFM-B (S.D.Ala. Dec 29, 2023( Thomas further cites the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT” as a basis for FEDERAL question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 3). However, “[t]he CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, a 1666 ACT of PARLIAMENT, is an ENGLISH LAW that plainly does not provide a BASIS for FEDERAL question jurisdiction.” Mims, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226577, at *2, 2023 WL 8804324, at *1; see White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184024, at *3-5, 2023 WL 6036842, at *2 (finding that plaintiff’s reference to the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT 1666” did not provide him with a colorable federal cause of action); Wood v. United States, 161 Fed.Cl. 30, 34-35 (Fed. Cl. 2022) (“Sovereign citizens also sometimes reference the CESTUI QUE VIE ACT OF 1666, or a ‘CESTUI QUE VIE’ TRUST, as support for their arguments in court…. In short, the legal fiction presented by plaintiff in the complaint is not based in law but in the fantasies of the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT. There is no jurisdiction in this court for fictitious claims.”).”
CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST – Champean v Rich Civil Action No: 1:16cv1254 (ATJ/MSN) E.D. VA. Nov. 10 2016) Dismissing as frivolous similar allegations Plaintiff then includes a Notice of Void Judgment, in which he argues that the courts to which members of the public currently have access “have no jurisdiction over living men. When the judge and the prosecutor use deceit and trickery to cause the living man to believe he is actually the defendant, those public officials have breached their fiduciary duties, and breached their contract with the public, and are subject to legal actions.” Compl. at 10. Plaintiff asserts in a section entitled “Jurisdiction” that the burden of proving jurisdiction lies with “the asserter” – in this case, the named Defendants – but although they have “had time and 2 different chances to respond,” they have “gone silent.” Compl. at 11. Plaintiff “revokes rescinds and cancels all signatures,” Compl. at 12, and declares himself the “Grantor and Sole beneficiary of the TASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR. Cestui Que Vie trust, a document vessel under the United States registry . . . .” Compl. at 13 – 16. In a “caveat,” Plaintiff observes that Defendants have “had every chance to respond to the Proof of Claim that was addressed and sent to them by Certified Mail” and declares that “for the Court Record,…
CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST – Champean v Rich Civil Action No: 1:16cv1254 (ATJ/MSN) E.D. VA. Nov. 10 2016) Dismissing as frivolous similar allegations Plaintiff then includes a Notice of Void Judgment, in which he argues that the courts to which members of the public currently have access “have no jurisdiction over living men. WhenContinue reading “CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST – Champean v Rich Civil Action No: 1:16cv1254 (ATJ/MSN) E.D. VA. Nov. 10 2016) Dismissing as frivolous similar allegations Plaintiff then includes a Notice of Void Judgment, in which he argues that the courts to which members of the public currently have access “have no jurisdiction over living men. When the judge and the prosecutor use deceit and trickery to cause the living man to believe he is actually the defendant, those public officials have breached their fiduciary duties, and breached their contract with the public, and are subject to legal actions.” Compl. at 10. Plaintiff asserts in a section entitled “Jurisdiction” that the burden of proving jurisdiction lies with “the asserter” – in this case, the named Defendants – but although they have “had time and 2 different chances to respond,” they have “gone silent.” Compl. at 11. Plaintiff “revokes rescinds and cancels all signatures,” Compl. at 12, and declares himself the “Grantor and Sole beneficiary of the TASHEIK CHAMPEAN, SR. Cestui Que Vie trust, a document vessel under the United States registry . . . .” Compl. at 13 – 16. In a “caveat,” Plaintiff observes that Defendants have “had every chance to respond to the Proof of Claim that was addressed and sent to them by Certified Mail” and declares that “for the Court Record,…”
COURT OF AGES: 9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION – AND VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW.
9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1. A DISPUTE IS A DISAGREEMENT NOT RESULTING FROM SIGNIFICANT LOSS, HARM OR CRIMINAL ACT. 2. DISPUTES ARE SETTLED QUICKLY BETWEEN DISPUTANTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 3. DISPUTANTS WHO ARE UNABLE TO SETTLE A MATTER BETWEEN THEMSELVES BRING THE MATTER BEFORE A JUDGE WHO IS AGREED UPON BY BOTH PARTIES. 4. DISPUTANTS AGREE TO ABIDEContinue reading “COURT OF AGES: 9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION – AND VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW.”
The TRUTH is the LIGHT 